Nandram v. M/s Garware Polyster Ltd.
Background
The appellant was hired in Aurangabad and rose through promotions there, before being transferred first to Silvasa and then to Pondicherry. He was terminated when the company closed its Pondicherry establishment: a decision taken by the company's management at its Aurangabad head office. He filed a complaint before the Labour Court at Aurangabad, which ruled in his favour, but the Industrial Court and later the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad bench) held that the Aurangabad Labour Court lacked territorial jurisdiction since his actual place of work at termination was Pondicherry.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that although the Pondicherry Labour Court undoubtedly had jurisdiction since that was where the appellant worked, this did not exclude jurisdiction at Aurangabad, because the decision to close the Pondicherry unit, the very decision that led to the termination, was taken by the management at Aurangabad, meaning part of the cause of action arose there too. On that basis, both Labour Courts had concurrent jurisdiction, so the Aurangabad Labour Court was entitled to entertain the complaint. The Court set aside the High Court and Industrial Court orders and restored the Labour Court's order (though for different reasons), while leaving the underlying merits of the termination itself to be decided by the Labour Court within six months, with other jurisdictional questions under the Maharashtra trade union law left open as not arising on these facts.
Lesson Learnt
When a decision taken at a company's head office (such as closing a branch) directly causes an employee's termination at a different location, part of the "cause of action" arises at the head office too, so a worker is not restricted to filing a labour complaint only where he physically worked, but may also approach the Labour Court where the decisive management action was taken.